Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[gf0012-aust]

but of course most important - overall national security.

again, the material that we see that norway gets access to is far more important at a national security level than sweden can ever hope to match.

domestic politics might run supreme here - but internationally who would the norwegians rather have the access to at a number of military and intel sharing levels - strong tip. it's NOT Sweden.

It's neither here nor there for me about what Norway selects, but seriously, some of the stuff being promoted as evidence of change just doesn't appear in the real world of discussions..

btw, I might live below the equator and in the southern hemisphere - but I spent 6 of the last 8 years in europe working on a variety of military and military related projects.

don't assume that I'm a "hillbilly" with no knowledge of how the game is played just because its the northern hemisphere.

 

[Grand Danois]

@ Falstaff

Then there's the issue that there usually is a premium of 20-30% attached to deals with high offsets. Though, I think that it is not the case in the SAAB offer (indirect subsidies).

 

[Grand Danois]

It seems Russia is one of the hardest hit by the current financial crisis. A very large proportion of their stockexchange capital was "fast money" i.e short term investors seeking high return on their invested capital selling off their assets when the trend turns ... that time has now come.

link

It's because 75% of the value of the RTS and MICEX were commodities based, so when commodities take a hit...

But of course, at that point, foreign investors had already withdrawn 55 bn USD from the Russian stock market - it's a marginal market and commodities based, so you liquidate those first when there is a credit crunch.

I note that the Iranians had their capital stashed away in the RTS... so they had no hedge when commodities went south... a 'doubly inferior' asset mgmt strategy, to use the current newspeak.

 

[Falstaff]

again, the material that we see that norway gets access to is far more important at a national security level than sweden can ever hope to match.

domestic politics might run supreme here - but internationally who would the norwegians rather have the access to at a number of military and intel sharing levels - strong tip. it's NOT Sweden.

It's neither here nor there for me about what Norway selects, but seriously, some of the stuff being promoted as evidence of change just doesn't appear in the real world of discussions..

btw, I might live below the equator and in the southern hemisphere - but I spent 6 of the last 8 years in europe working on a variety of military and military related projects.

don't assume that I'm a "hillbilly" with no knowledge of how the game is played just because its the northern hemisphere.

I sometimes think that you know too much about how the game is played. I sometimes have the impression your view is very, very technical and rational.
I definitely see your points and for me they're good points. But are these points good enough for the norwegian "Joe the plumber"?
He might rather be influenced by what is officially available and is in the media. And little cosy Saab might be a bit more sympathetic than big cold american LM to him. And he's the one who then goes to the election.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I definitely see your points and for me they're good points. But are these points good enough for the norwegian "Joe the plumber"?

at a clinical level I'd hate to see a military procurement level decided by a "joe the plumber" influence - and I get back to my earlier that this is the fastest way to kill your warfighters through stupidity.

He might rather be influenced by what is officially available and is in the media. And little cosy Saab might be a bit more sympathetic than big cold american LM to him. And he's the one who then goes to the election.

again, see above. certainly, my limited exposure to people in the Norwegian military is that they prefer the JSF and that the Gripen is regarded as a "3 Klasse BMW" or "C Klasse Mercedes". Good for the job if needed but not preferred if things were based on sheer capability.

It's why I have a strong view that all politicians should be able to be pursued and prosecuted when they make stupid politically motivated decisions that effect warfighting and the warfighters. aka "doing a John Nott"

If they could be prosecuted they'd be far more considerate in their decision making process.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I definitely see your points and for me they're good points. But are these points good enough for the norwegian "Joe the plumber"?
He might rather be influenced by what is officially available and is in the media. And little cosy Saab might be a bit more sympathetic than big cold american LM to him. And he's the one who then goes to the election.

We suffer from similar stupidity in australia.

It happened with Collins, the F-111's and now JSF.

In fact the general public have no idea of how the Collins was salvaged by 3rd party Australian industry and the USN. They still regard them as less than effective, It's slowly being turned around, but it's taken 10 years to start to repair at a PR level. Ditto with the early years of purchasing and using the F-111's

The JSF attacks in Australia directly impacted upon how much work was allocated to australian companies. (guess how keen the canadians and other members were to pick up on that opportunity!)

the australian press can thank themselves for not doing real investigative journalism rather than do sound bite solutions through the idiots of Air Power Australia etc...

The popular press is not the right vehicle to judge technical platforms.

 

[Falstaff]

It's why I have a strong view that all politicians should be able to be pursued and prosecuted when they make stupid politically motivated decisions that effect warfighting and the warfighters. aka "doing a John Nott"

If they could be prosecuted they'd be far more considerate in their decision making process.

Prosecuted by whom? You or Joe the plumber? That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. You're knowledgeable, you know military stuff and tactics and so on. Joe doesn't. But there are millions of Joes and only a few Garys in every country. And I think most politicians are more afraid of being held responsive for excessive military spending than of making a decision that effects warfighters in a negative way. At least here in Germany that's the case.
As was said before, the procurement is a hot topic in Norway. And Waylander and Kato will support me when I say: Every single procurement program that has become a public affair here in germany was doomed from the start and prone to stupid political decisions influenced by Joe the mighty plumber.

 

[Falstaff]

We suffer from similar stupidity in australia.

It happened with Collins, the F-111's and now JSF.

In fact the general public have no idea of how the Collins was salvaged by 3rd party Australian industry and the USN. They still regard them as less than effective, It's slowly being turned around, but it's taken 10 years to start to repair at a PR level. Ditto with the early years of purchasing and using the F-111's

The JSF attacks in Australia directly impacted upon how much work was allocated to australian companies. (guess how keen the canadians and other members were to pick up on that opportunity!)

the australian press can thank themselves for not doing real investigative journalism rather than do sound bite solutions through the idiots of Air Power Australia etc...

The popular press is not the right vehicle to judge technical platforms.

Exactly

 

[ASFC]

Well actualy, untill now Great Britain only ordered two F-35B for the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase. And almost half of those planned 138 units have been moved to "the right".

:unknown

It doesn't matter if it is 'ordered' or 'plans to order', Britain has no A model slots to give to Israel, only if Israel takes up the B model option can we possibly give them slots (remembering that if Britain does order, we will want ours ASAP, due to the age of the Harriers, and given that the Afghan deployment has only made their age problems worse).

 

[stigmata]

Secondly, they often contain (industrial) services you would've bought anyway but perhaps not in this particular country.
Example: Norway buys Gripen. Sweden needs 3 new hydropower plants and plans to buy them over the next 12 years.

Thanks Falstaff, i thought it was primarily a SAAB-Norway deal, and i could'nt see what use SAAB would have of ex 3 new hydropower plants. Hands down on all your points when Sweden is involved.
If Sweden buys 3 powerplants from Norway instead of Xcountry, will SAAB pay the price difference or will Sweden consider the tax revenue from SAAB as an "offset" for the additional cost of the powerplants ?

 

[harryriedl]

:unknown

It doesn't matter if it is 'ordered' or 'plans to order', Britain has no A model slots to give to Israel, only if Israel takes up the B model option can we possibly give them slots (remembering that if Britain does order, we will want ours ASAP, due to the age of the Harriers, and given that the Afghan deployment has only made their age problems worse).

and not forgetting that the two carriers will be eagerly awaiting its main combat power. the UK can't rely give up slots a mid power could like Canada or the NL (also they both A slots rather than B)

 

[Dalregementet]

Thanks Falstaff, i thought it was primarily a SAAB-Norway deal, and i could'nt see what use SAAB would have of ex 3 new hydropower plants. Hands down on all your points when Sweden is involved.
If Sweden buys 3 powerplants from Norway instead of Xcountry, will SAAB pay the price difference or will Sweden consider the tax revenue from SAAB as an "offset" for the additional cost of the powerplants ?

The same company can provide these "powerplants" from any country, just a matter of logistics - same, same but not different.

 

[stigmata]

You do realise what access norway gets from the US at a number of levels? that the swedes can't even remotely hope to match

I for one do not realise that. Would you mind to elaborate ?

 

[Falstaff]

i thought it was primarily a SAAB-Norway deal

As I said, considering the magnitude of deal we're talking about there most certainly is a national level as well, although I don't know for certain. It was just an example...
But defense procurement almost never just is a company-country deal. Just imagine what it would mean for Sweden if Saab managed to win the contract. So Sweden as a country takes dire interest in winning this contract.

If Sweden buys 3 powerplants from Norway instead of Xcountry, will SAAB pay the price difference or will Sweden consider the tax revenue from SAAB as an "offset" for the additional cost of the powerplants ?

In this case: the latter. If there are any additional costs at all. In addition, the Norwegian prime contractor would have Swedish subcontractors or even found a joint venture, or something else.

 

[caprise]

...my limited exposure to people in the Norwegian military is that they prefer the JSF and that the Gripen is regarded as a "3 Klasse BMW" or "C Klasse Mercedes". Good for the job if needed but not preferred if things were based on sheer capability.

You could say that that view exists also in america...about the F-35, if you believe Air Force Association latest compairison:

• F-22A carries twice as many air-to-air missiles as the F-35A
• F-22A tactically employs at nearly twice the altitude and at 50%
  greater airspeed than the F-35A
• F-22A can control more than twice the battle space of the F-35A
• F-22A AESA radar has more T/R elements than F-35 radar
• F-22A in production...F-35A initial operational capability date is
  2013…key in considering F-15Cs need to be replaced now
• Only the F-22 features vectored thrust, giving it twice the maneuverability of an F-35
• The F-22 can turn at twice the rate of an F-35

http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueBriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf (Page 5)

Of course this is clearly an attempt to lift up the F-22 numbers on the agenda now when F-35 seems to get questioned (in the press) but it also shows that there will be some further infighting in the US between these two types.

Finally, hope that your view of Sweden/Gripen(capability) is not colored by the australian experience of the Collins class subs?

Regards C.

 

[stigmata]

Finally, hope that your view of Sweden/Gripen(capability) is not colored by the australian experience of the Collins class subs?

Actually that's my impression too that bow must have been a traumatic experience

 

[stigmata]

Just imagine what it would mean for Sweden if Saab managed to win the contract.

My imagination is'nt what it used to be as a teenager. I do see a bonus in keeping the warplane industry busy and evolving, but please fill in the blanks

 

[Falstaff]

My imagination is'nt what it used to be as a teenager. I do see a bonus in keeping the warplane industry busy and evolving, but please fill in the blanks

It would mean that the Gripen NG will be developed beyond demonstrator status, it would bring all the benefits of a broader customer base, a customer like Norway who isn't short on money at all and still choses the Gripen might well be called a key customer and so on. I'll leave a few blanks for you so you can train your imagination

 

[B3LA]

Since summer, the US$ has gained some 30% in value compared to the Swedish Krona.
Even though both Norway and Sweden have good balanced financials, we get
punished in times of turmoil when people flees to the safety (?) of the larger currencies.

Would these new exchange rates in any way affect the Norwegian purchase ?
(Or are they already locked or something ?)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would these new exchange rates in any way affect the Norwegian purchase ?
(Or are they already locked or something ?)

the norwegians have the same deal as australia. the price is not subject to exchange rate fluctuations - it's held againt a US purchase price based on individual negotiated (country specific) agreement